Pie menus, web services, file sharing and DRM... this has the makings of the longest Slashdot flamewar in history. I suppose the only remaining question is, does it run faster in Gnome or KDE?
In Cuba it's pretty common to see electric shower heads that heat the water as it flows through. The wires are usually exposed and wet, which made me glad that Cuba uses 110 volts...
Re:DNA testing on job applications
on
Faster DNA Testing
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Don't worry, the machine will have bright, friendly-looking lights labelled "crazy", "dishonest", "gay" and "Arab".
Whenever folks talk about OSS in the context of markets, I think it should be with a jaundiced eye towards our "helpmates" at IBM, Novell, SAP/MySQL and Sun.
It's not a zero-sum game - obviously IBM and friends are motivated by self-interest, but that doesn't mean their contributions can't benefit others. A license like the GPL creates a commons that any self-interested company can contribute to, but none of them owns. So far the outcome appears to be a growing market for free software, less OMG/OSF-style industry infighting, and lots of free, high-quality software for homes, schools and small businesses. I'm no market fundamentalist, but I'd say it's fair to take the quotes off "helpmates".
IPv6 won't solve the address scarcity problem, because nobody wants a public IPv6 address that isn't reachable from the IPv4 network (who wants to turn away customers?). This won't start to change until almost everyone has switched to IPv6. Therefore the non-IPv4-compatible parts of the IPv6 address space are only useful for private networks and point-to-point links, where address scarcity is not a problem.
NAT, on the other hand, is already solving the address scarcity problem. It isn't necessary for every IP-enabled toaster to have a globally unique address - it isn't even necessary for every home computer to have a globally unique address! People who only use the internet for web and email can happily sit behind symmetric NAT without even noticing (many of them already are). People who use P2P need full-cone NAT, but assuming an average of 128 connections per user at peak times, you can fit about 500 users behind a single address even with full-cone NAT.
IPv6 has some good features, but solving address scarcity isn't one of them.
And of course, the underlying science of Pavlov relies on drugs.
Only if you count the brain's natural chemicals as drugs, in which case everything relies on drugs and your statement is kind of meaningless.
Pavlov relies on the fact that when your brain makes a good prediction it rewards itself, and when it makes a bad prediction it witholds the expected reward. Of course we don't "need" games in the same way we need food, but we can learn to need them, and that's what addicts have done: their brains have adapted to a constant stream of reward signals from correctly predicting the structure of the game, and when those rewards are witheld they suffer like the little shivering junkies they are.:o)
In a true free market, every ollar is vote, but being a billionaire isn't total control of the poor.
Really? Imagine a man who's robbed and left destitute. There are no employment laws, so employers are free to offer him room and board but no cash. Since he has to eat, he has to take the job anyway. He never earns another dollar, and therefore has no "vote". In effect he's a slave. If he has any children, they will also spend their lives as slaves. Congratulations, you've reinvented feudalism.
How much can a billionaire buy in respect to need? Only so many bananas, eggs and gallons of milk. Overbuying leads to waste and loss of wealth.
Yes, that's why billionaires don't spend all their money on bananas, eggs and milk - they invest it and (in most cases) grow richer in both absolute and relative terms.
Maybe the wealthy will buy all the land? How will they maint in it? How will they build on it? How will they clean it, paint it, power it?
They'll hire people who need to eat, and pay them so little that they'll never be able to lift themselves out of poverty. It's called feudalism.
How can money be a "non-force mechanism" when property laws (like all laws) are backed up by force? Libertarian capitalists love to whine about "coercion" when the topic is tax, but as soon as property laws are called into question they go straight for their guns.
Tell me, where exactly in nature does your natural right to property reside? Can you objectively demonstrate its existence? Or are you just tacking the word "natural" onto your opinion as a cheap rhetorical trick?
Only by blood do we truly stop those who dare to take our lives, our properties and our natural right to both.
Very stirring, and you managed to get from "non-force" to "only by blood" in just three paragraphs.
It is funny when I believe in voting only with your dollars (political voting is evil always), and get slammed for it.
Maybe that's because it's naïve bullshit. In a dollar vote system, those who are born destitute are born without rights.
Um... maybe because they take your fingerprints, photographs and iris scans, keep them forever, and probably share them with other governments, including your own?
Look up US-VISIT and UKUSA... if my dad didn't live in the US I would honestly never go there again.
What about things like embedding a spreadsheet in a word processor document? Doesn't that require a shared component model, not just shared data formats?
Hmmm... how about a local SMTP server that replaces $FIRST_NAME with each user's first name, etc, and delivers a copy to each user? That way you could run a mail merge from any email client.
Re:Allow me to be the first to say...
on
Vista To Get Symlinks?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That after all those years Microsoft still has drive letters with a dirty hack (my desktop / my computer/whatever) to 'unify' them, has only broken symlink functionality (shortcuts), and only now mentiones symlinks is quite pathetic, if you ask me.
Backward compatibility is absolutely indispensable for Microsoft - the only reason it's still the market leader after all the lawsuits, bad publicity and downright talented competition of the last few years is because nobody wants to break compatibility with their existing software, documents, networks and hardware. Microsoft understands this, and while I'm sure it drives a lot of MS developers insane, backward compatibility is always given top priority, even if it makes the architecture horribly ugly and illogical.
(If you want to see the Unix equivalent, read the chapter on terminal I/O in Stevens' Advanced Programming for the UNIX Environment. There are backward compatibility hacks in there that are so ugly you'll wish you'd been born blind.)
The UK security service (MI5) doesn't need a court order to access traffic data, which includes tracking your mobile phone. If you find out you've been tracked (or bugged, or burgled) you can complain to a tribunal, but "In the course of their existence, no complaints have ever been upheld by the interception of communications tribunal, security service tribunal and intelligence services tribunal." - The Guardian
It wouldn't be ODF according to whom? If OASIS is any less aggressive in defending the OpenDocument name than Sun has been in defending Java, Microsoft can simply create a superset of OpenDocument, use the.odf extension and headers, call it OpenDocument, and make the standard meaningless.
The problem with an extremely liberal license is that it can be embraced and extended. The best way for Microsoft to kill OpenDocument would be to implement it perfectly, wait a year, then add lots of cryptic, undocumented extensions that are only supported by MS Word. When you receive an OpenDocument email attachment you'll be in the same position you're currently in with.doc attachments - it might work, it might not, and you'll never be sure the document's supposed to look the way it looks on your computer, unless you're running Word.
OASIS (the consortium behind OpenDocument) is doing its best to avoid licensing issues and legal arguments, which unfortunately seems to mean you can write whatever you want and call it OpenDocument, or at least "OpenDocument-based" or some other form of weasel words.
Why do people seem to insist that by turning on the IPv6 website, somehow that will prevent people from accessing the IPv4 website? So many ways to address this: Enabling a second network stack on the existing host; Standing up an additional server to host the IPv6 version; putting a 4to6 gateway in front of the website...
All of these require an IPv4 address, and thus do nothing to alleviate the "address space shortage". My point was not that nobody wants IPv6, but that nobody wants to drop IPv4 compatibility, so IPv6 cannot fix the problems of IPv4.
TFA does talk about reclaiming old IP allocations and concludes the return is not worth the investment.
If I was trying to sell IPv6 routers I'd probably come to the same conclusion.
I think Ran Atkinson hit the nail on the head when he asked, who's going to run the first service that's not accessible using IPv4? The answer, as far as I can see, is nobody. People might use IPv6 for their internal networks, they might use IPv6 opportunistically and fall back to IPv4 where necessary, but *nobody* is going to want an IPv6-only connection to the rest of the world until *everybody* supports IPv6. That means the people using IPv6 will still need IPv4 addresses for the forseeable future, so IPv6 won't solve the alleged address space shortage even if it's widely adopted - it will need to be *universally* adopted before it even starts to solve the problem, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Pie menus, web services, file sharing and DRM... this has the makings of the longest Slashdot flamewar in history. I suppose the only remaining question is, does it run faster in Gnome or KDE?
In Cuba it's pretty common to see electric shower heads that heat the water as it flows through. The wires are usually exposed and wet, which made me glad that Cuba uses 110 volts...
Don't worry, the machine will have bright, friendly-looking lights labelled "crazy", "dishonest", "gay" and "Arab".
It's not a zero-sum game - obviously IBM and friends are motivated by self-interest, but that doesn't mean their contributions can't benefit others. A license like the GPL creates a commons that any self-interested company can contribute to, but none of them owns. So far the outcome appears to be a growing market for free software, less OMG/OSF-style industry infighting, and lots of free, high-quality software for homes, schools and small businesses. I'm no market fundamentalist, but I'd say it's fair to take the quotes off "helpmates".
NAT, on the other hand, is already solving the address scarcity problem. It isn't necessary for every IP-enabled toaster to have a globally unique address - it isn't even necessary for every home computer to have a globally unique address! People who only use the internet for web and email can happily sit behind symmetric NAT without even noticing (many of them already are). People who use P2P need full-cone NAT, but assuming an average of 128 connections per user at peak times, you can fit about 500 users behind a single address even with full-cone NAT.
IPv6 has some good features, but solving address scarcity isn't one of them.
Grammar nazi shoots burglar: "it was either he or I"
Only if you count the brain's natural chemicals as drugs, in which case everything relies on drugs and your statement is kind of meaningless.
Pavlov relies on the fact that when your brain makes a good prediction it rewards itself, and when it makes a bad prediction it witholds the expected reward. Of course we don't "need" games in the same way we need food, but we can learn to need them, and that's what addicts have done: their brains have adapted to a constant stream of reward signals from correctly predicting the structure of the game, and when those rewards are witheld they suffer like the little shivering junkies they are. :o)
Yes, eventually through generations of struggle the poor won the right to vote. That doesn't mean we should throw it away and return to feudalism.
Really? Imagine a man who's robbed and left destitute. There are no employment laws, so employers are free to offer him room and board but no cash. Since he has to eat, he has to take the job anyway. He never earns another dollar, and therefore has no "vote". In effect he's a slave. If he has any children, they will also spend their lives as slaves. Congratulations, you've reinvented feudalism.
How much can a billionaire buy in respect to need? Only so many bananas, eggs and gallons of milk. Overbuying leads to waste and loss of wealth.
Yes, that's why billionaires don't spend all their money on bananas, eggs and milk - they invest it and (in most cases) grow richer in both absolute and relative terms.
Maybe the wealthy will buy all the land? How will they maint in it? How will they build on it? How will they clean it, paint it, power it?
They'll hire people who need to eat, and pay them so little that they'll never be able to lift themselves out of poverty. It's called feudalism.
Tell me, where exactly in nature does your natural right to property reside? Can you objectively demonstrate its existence? Or are you just tacking the word "natural" onto your opinion as a cheap rhetorical trick?
Only by blood do we truly stop those who dare to take our lives, our properties and our natural right to both.
Very stirring, and you managed to get from "non-force" to "only by blood" in just three paragraphs.
It is funny when I believe in voting only with your dollars (political voting is evil always), and get slammed for it.
Maybe that's because it's naïve bullshit. In a dollar vote system, those who are born destitute are born without rights.
Wouldn't that create a conflict of interests? It's bad enough that they're allowed to own shares and hold non-executive directorships.
Look up US-VISIT and UKUSA... if my dad didn't live in the US I would honestly never go there again.
What about things like embedding a spreadsheet in a word processor document? Doesn't that require a shared component model, not just shared data formats?
Hmmm... how about a local SMTP server that replaces $FIRST_NAME with each user's first name, etc, and delivers a copy to each user? That way you could run a mail merge from any email client.
Backward compatibility is absolutely indispensable for Microsoft - the only reason it's still the market leader after all the lawsuits, bad publicity and downright talented competition of the last few years is because nobody wants to break compatibility with their existing software, documents, networks and hardware. Microsoft understands this, and while I'm sure it drives a lot of MS developers insane, backward compatibility is always given top priority, even if it makes the architecture horribly ugly and illogical.
(If you want to see the Unix equivalent, read the chapter on terminal I/O in Stevens' Advanced Programming for the UNIX Environment. There are backward compatibility hacks in there that are so ugly you'll wish you'd been born blind.)
The UK security service (MI5) doesn't need a court order to access traffic data, which includes tracking your mobile phone. If you find out you've been tracked (or bugged, or burgled) you can complain to a tribunal, but "In the course of their existence, no complaints have ever been upheld by the interception of communications tribunal, security service tribunal and intelligence services tribunal." - The Guardian
It wouldn't be ODF according to whom? If OASIS is any less aggressive in defending the OpenDocument name than Sun has been in defending Java, Microsoft can simply create a superset of OpenDocument, use the .odf extension and headers, call it OpenDocument, and make the standard meaningless.
OASIS (the consortium behind OpenDocument) is doing its best to avoid licensing issues and legal arguments, which unfortunately seems to mean you can write whatever you want and call it OpenDocument, or at least "OpenDocument-based" or some other form of weasel words.
Most man pages are references, not tutorials - reading the bash manual page is a horrible way to learn shell scripting.
The user could just add http://google.com/search?q= to the beginning of all the URLs...
It wouldn't be as dark as the background, just darker than a star... well, assuming the background isn't entirely made of Dyson spheres too...
Does this mean the aliens will conclude that New Jersey was the centre of human civilisation?
I drink in the pool, and I XXXX in the pool, but personally I don't drink XXXX in the pool. Still, each to their own...
All of these require an IPv4 address, and thus do nothing to alleviate the "address space shortage". My point was not that nobody wants IPv6, but that nobody wants to drop IPv4 compatibility, so IPv6 cannot fix the problems of IPv4.
If I was trying to sell IPv6 routers I'd probably come to the same conclusion.
I think Ran Atkinson hit the nail on the head when he asked, who's going to run the first service that's not accessible using IPv4? The answer, as far as I can see, is nobody. People might use IPv6 for their internal networks, they might use IPv6 opportunistically and fall back to IPv4 where necessary, but *nobody* is going to want an IPv6-only connection to the rest of the world until *everybody* supports IPv6. That means the people using IPv6 will still need IPv4 addresses for the forseeable future, so IPv6 won't solve the alleged address space shortage even if it's widely adopted - it will need to be *universally* adopted before it even starts to solve the problem, and I don't see that happening any time soon.